Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Aerospace Design
• Overview & recap
• Aircraft balance
Delft
University of
Technology
• Weight&balance
• Definition
• Estimation of the OEW CG
• Definition of the loading diagram
• Sensitivity to the Wing shift
• Tail Sizing
• Control (maneuverability)
All these aspect will be mainly faced for the longitudinal plane. The same analysis must
be applied also to the lateral-directional characteristics.
• To ensure that the equilibrium is stable (for both steady and dynamic
perturbations)
During AE2111-II you learnt to predict the EOW through class II estimation
methods.
A typical class II method combines relevant geometry and load
parameters (Nz) and corrective coefficient to calculate weight of
components
An iterative process is needed to
guarantee the convergence of the EOW
w.r.t. the value calculated during the
conceptual stage (Ae1222-II).
Class I
application
Class II results
Class II application
%MTOW
OEW1
What if OEW1 ≠ OEW2 ?
• Iterate until perc. diff < 1%
• Be aware of the consequences!!! OEW2
Mission + OEW/MTOW
x W CGi i
xCGOEW i
W i
i
Tail**:
Engine:
Data provided directly by the
manufactures
Why?
The position of the landing gear, as the position of the wing, affects not
only the CG position but also the CG limits due to clearance and stability
requirements during ground operations.
The main landing gear is positioned relatively to the wing (i.e. to the wing a.c.) ,
typically at 45-50% MAC, to guarantee ease of rotation at take off.
To obtain small tail loads, the center of gravity is always located close to
the wing aerodynamic center (a.c.):
Lw
xLEMAC
MAC
o o
ac c.g.
Mac
MTOW
43000
aisle seats
MZFW 39000
middle seat
fuel
aircraft 31000
29000
27000
OEW 25000
0,000 0,050 0,100 0,150 0,200 0,250 0,300 0,350 0,400
xcg [mac]
Calculated
AE3211-I Systems Engineering with
and Aerospace class
Design II methods 28
The passenger loading
Usually we rely on a statistical prediction of the
passenger distribution normally managed by
the different airliners.
The “window seating rule” can be adopted.
In this case the cargo has been represented as two concentrated masses.
cargo
33000
by passengers and attendants
31000 moving, landing gear
29000
retracting, food and drinks
served, etc.
27000
25000
Q1: Why the top potato
0,000 0,050 0,100 0,150 0,200
xcg [mac]
0,250 0,300 0,350 0,400
is smaller?
Q2: Why is there no
symmetry?
AE3211-I Systems Engineering and Aerospace Design 33
The loading diagram
37000
fuel
always sit behind the max
mass [kg]
cargo
35000
aft c.g. position (with some
margin to avoid tip over)
33000
31000
• The nose gear should not
29000 be overloaded**
(<15%MTOW) to not spoil
braking efficiency and allow
27000
25000
0,000 0,050 0,100 0,150 0,200 0,250 0,300 0,350 0,400
steering during braking
xcg [mac]
In order to affect the c.g. range (i.e., the position of the most fore
and aft c.g), the designer has the opportunity to modify the
longitudinal position of the wing (group) with respect to the
fuselage.
To study how the c.g. ranges changes with the longitudinal wing
position, we can generate 3 loading diagrams for 3 different wing
positions (expressed in terms of XLEMAC/lfuselage ratios):
• Position 1. (the one used for the initial tail sizing)
• Slightly forward wing positioning (e.g. position 1 -10%)
• Slightly backward wing positioning (e.g. position 1 +10%)
45000
43000
Initial wing positioning
fuel
37000
cargo
mass [kg]
35000
2% in-flight variations
33000
31000
c.g. max range at wing position 1
29000
27000
25000
0,000 0,050 0,100 0,150 0,200 0,250 0,300 0,350 0,400
cg [mac]
45000
35000
29000
27000
25000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400
xcg [mac]
43000
window seats
37000 aisle seats
middle seat
mass [kg]
fuel
35000 cargo
33000
c.g. max range at wing position 3
31000
29000
27000
25000
-0.100 -0.050 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400
xcg [mac]
Most forward
Most aft
A typical location of 10-15% MAC behind the most aft c.g. limit, which also prevents the
aircraft from tip-over